1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.os.msdos.misc

  • No UMA; no Enh 386.

    From Bruno =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E9lix?= Rezende Ribeiro@oitofelix@sdf.org to comp.os.msdos.misc on Wed Mar 2 17:25:22 2022
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.msdos.misc

    Hello DOS users,

    I'm running MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 FWG natively (from SD Card) in
    this relatively "modern" Positivo Mobo/Intel Classmate laptop computer
    (Intel Atom 64-bit/2GB RAM). I was not able to get Windows running in
    386 Enhanced mode; no matter what, the computer always reboots without
    notice upon WIN.COM invocation. That was the case for Standard Mode as
    well, which I was eventually able to get working by enabling it (copying WIN.CNF from 3.1's installation) and replacing a VGALOGO.{LGO,RLE} by CGALOGO.{LGO,RLE} once I figured out the problem was the video driver
    shipped with Windows. On that note, the driver I'm using is the SVGA
    one patched to work with VESA-compliant cards (the maximum resolution of
    this notebook is 1024x600, which is not supported by the driver, and
    1024x768 which is supported does not work with it, but 800x600 works
    just fine.)

    Now I'm able to surf WEB, discuss in newsgroups, talk in IRC, all from
    standard mode. I'm posting this from Netscape 3.04Gold running on that
    system. However I'd have more freedom of choice and convenience or
    features running DOS boxes, for example, if I was able to get 386
    Enhanced mode going. Any Ideas on things to try to accomplish that are
    very welcome!

    Another somewhat serious problem I've been bothered with is the fact
    that neither EMM386.EXE nor JEMMEX.EXE can find usable Upper Memory to
    allocate for UMBs, even with aggressive scan settings. In fact, neither
    can I. I've spent hours upon hours systematically testing I= and X=
    directives just to get some isolated 4kb free pages at the end of the
    family of upper memory segments (..., BEFF-BFFF, CEFF-CFFF, ...), but
    even then the system becomes unstable. MSD memory usage reports didn't
    seem reliable. By the looks of it the whole UMA is used by the BIOS or hardware devices, or something. Help with this would be greatly
    appreciated as well!


    Thanks!
    --
    http://oitofelix.sdf.org/
    --- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
  • From Christopher Kelley@debianz@sdf.org to comp.os.msdos.misc on Thu Jul 28 12:37:04 2022
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.msdos.misc

    I am wondering if this system uses an EFI "bios" or an actual BIOS? I am not sure how well an emulated BIOS will function with DOS/Win3.x as the emulated BIOS may not be handing all of the BIOS calls like a hardware BIOS would.



    Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:

    Hello DOS users,

    I'm running MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 FWG natively (from SD Card) in
    this relatively "modern" Positivo Mobo/Intel Classmate laptop computer
    (Intel Atom 64-bit/2GB RAM). I was not able to get Windows running in
    386 Enhanced mode; no matter what, the computer always reboots without
    notice upon WIN.COM invocation. That was the case for Standard Mode as
    well, which I was eventually able to get working by enabling it (copying WIN.CNF from 3.1's installation) and replacing a VGALOGO.{LGO,RLE} by CGALOGO.{LGO,RLE} once I figured out the problem was the video driver
    shipped with Windows. On that note, the driver I'm using is the SVGA
    one patched to work with VESA-compliant cards (the maximum resolution of
    this notebook is 1024x600, which is not supported by the driver, and
    1024x768 which is supported does not work with it, but 800x600 works
    just fine.)

    Now I'm able to surf WEB, discuss in newsgroups, talk in IRC, all from standard mode. I'm posting this from Netscape 3.04Gold running on that system. However I'd have more freedom of choice and convenience or
    features running DOS boxes, for example, if I was able to get 386
    Enhanced mode going. Any Ideas on things to try to accomplish that are
    very welcome!

    Another somewhat serious problem I've been bothered with is the fact
    that neither EMM386.EXE nor JEMMEX.EXE can find usable Upper Memory to allocate for UMBs, even with aggressive scan settings. In fact, neither
    can I. I've spent hours upon hours systematically testing I= and X= directives just to get some isolated 4kb free pages at the end of the
    family of upper memory segments (..., BEFF-BFFF, CEFF-CFFF, ...), but
    even then the system becomes unstable. MSD memory usage reports didn't
    seem reliable. By the looks of it the whole UMA is used by the BIOS or hardware devices, or something. Help with this would be greatly
    appreciated as well!

    Thanks!

    --
    http://oitofelix.sdf.org/

    --- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113